View Poll Results: Who will be Batman by 2039?

Voters
104. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bruce Wayne

    67 64.42%
  • Dick Grayson

    9 8.65%
  • Damian

    21 20.19%
  • Someone else (please specify)

    4 3.85%
  • Doesn't matter who is behind the cowl, it'll still sell

    1 0.96%
  • No one: DC itself will no longer exist by then

    2 1.92%
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 112
  1. #46
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superboy-Prime View Post
    Actually, Miles was brought into the main Marvel Universe in January 2016, his film Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse released in December 2018, two years after he'd already been brought into the main MU. He debuted in the cartoons in 2014, but that's far less impactful to his popularity to the film. So your example doesn't really work.
    Not necessarily - by that point they already would have been well aware that the movie was coming. From a market perspective it'd make sense to get him established in the main books ahead of the film so there'd be various trades already available when the film came out.

    Sure, if you want to get deep into it, how about Nova (Sam Alexander), Green Lantern (John Stewart), who was co-existing with Kyle Rayner before the Corps returned, The Flash (Wally West) and Jay Garrick, who was still around and operating during Wally's stories, etc.
    Can't speak of Nova, but John and Kyle both came about because they made the GL a Corps, and now Hal and John fans bicker a bunch, and Kyle often doesn't seem to get brought up by the fandom as much. Wally became Flash after Barry died when death meant something, and now that fandom bickers. I'd prefer that Batman fandom doesn't go down that direction.

    Trying to pick apart any specific examples doesn't affect my point at all.
    Disagree - I think the differences are too different for them to work as proper examples - and if the examples don't work, then there's no point made.

    I mean, no hard feelings, but I'm much more inclined to listen to what John Ridley's saying on the internal conversations around the character he's writing over at DC Comics than Vakanai on CBR.com. He's an actual source.
    Oh there's definitely no hard feelings, and I see where you're coming from. But history kind of points to writers being **** sources about how well used or how much use their creations will see under some other writer's pen. Ridley's perspective in my opinion is only important for as long as Ridley is writing. After he steps away, it's a crap shoot if his ideas or characters get carried on by the next writer who wants to craft his (or her) own ideas and characters.

  2. #47
    Mighty Member Superboy-Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Earth-33
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Not necessarily - by that point they already would have been well aware that the movie was coming. From a market perspective it'd make sense to get him established in the main books ahead of the film so there'd be various trades already available when the film came out.



    Can't speak of Nova, but John and Kyle both came about because they made the GL a Corps, and now Hal and John fans bicker a bunch, and Kyle often doesn't seem to get brought up by the fandom as much. Wally became Flash after Barry died when death meant something, and now that fandom bickers. I'd prefer that Batman fandom doesn't go down that direction.



    Disagree - I think the differences are too different for them to work as proper examples - and if the examples don't work, then there's no point made.



    Oh there's definitely no hard feelings, and I see where you're coming from. But history kind of points to writers being **** sources about how well used or how much use their creations will see under some other writer's pen. Ridley's perspective in my opinion is only important for as long as Ridley is writing. After he steps away, it's a crap shoot if his ideas or characters get carried on by the next writer who wants to craft his (or her) own ideas and characters.
    Your Miles point doesn't make sense, as the film establishes Miles exists in a separate universe from Peter B. Parker, with Miles' Peter dying in the first act. That's the wrong kind of synergy.

    So you're admitting to being biased. I specifically mentioned John and Kyle when the Corps was destroyed, as Kyle's entire origin hinged on being the last Green Lantern. Jay Garrick was still The Flash when Wally took on the mantle.

    I could bring up Blue Beetle (Ted Kord and Jaime Reyes) too, among others. It's the same.

    If you want to talk about history, there's never been a Batman that was established from his debut as co-existing with Bruce. That's never happened. Not with Azrael, not with Jim Gordon, and not with Dick Grayson (His status quo as Batman couldn't handle Bruce's return). In an increasingly crowded Bat-Family, with in a dying market like the comics industry, with books like Batman and the Signal and Batwing being unable to sell, do you truly believe that DC would go through all this effort to bring back a character with 6 appearances from the 70s, revamp them from the ground up, make them Batman instead of the dozens of other Bat-Family members, and then reduce the amount of money they make off of them? I get you don't want him to stick around as Batman, but think about that. Why do you think even when Dan DiDio was running things that Jace Fox as Batman was still defined as permanent? Like I said, I'd rather stick to John Ridley's facts about the conversations around the character over at DC rather than you.

  3. #48
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superboy-Prime View Post
    Your Miles point doesn't make sense, as the film establishes Miles exists in a separate universe from Peter B. Parker, with Miles' Peter dying in the first act. That's the wrong kind of synergy.
    It doesn't need that exacting level of synergy. Miles may exist in another universe in film, but in the comic books the Ultimate universe outside of Spider-Man was basically dead, and this way Miles can cross over in all the Spidey books more easily. It's more important that the bump in comics sales a movie causes has content with that character in them, for that audience to buy, than for it to completely reflect the movie, since those people buying for the movie never become long term comic buyers.

    So you're admitting to being biased. I specifically mentioned John and Kyle when the Corps was destroyed, as Kyle's entire origin hinged on being the last Green Lantern. Jay Garrick was still The Flash when Wally took on the mantle.
    How am I admitting to being biased? I didn't say I was biased, so clearly you read something in something that makes you believe I'm biased, but doing that thing where you say "So you admit to being biased even though you've not said you're biased and I'm not explaining how what you said makes you biased." Please, for clarity, don't do that.
    I brought up the Corps because, even though they were destroyed when Kyle had his origin, the Corps had introduced the whole idea of multiple GLs, and human GLs to boot, beforehand. Even if the Corps was destroyed then, the GL audience was trained for decades to accept new human GLs. It's silly to ignore that aspect of it, no matter what the Corps status was during Kyle's origin.

    Jay is the grandfather Flash. Barry or Wally taking the mantle while he's still Flash in JSA stories is different, never mind the fact that the Flash family is just different from the Bat one.

    I could bring up Blue Beetle (Ted Kord and Jaime Reyes) too, among others. It's the same.
    Not really. Blue Beetle is a more obscure character who during Ted's era couldn't support a book.


    Basically, the examples you're using are not similar. A popular hero like Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman has never had another character share their title while they've lived until now, only when they were dead, which never lasted, done as a gimmick. What happens in Flash, GL, and Blue Beetle are too specific to those different properties, in how the heroes, popularity, franchise, and legacy works compared to those other titles.

    If you want to talk about history, there's never been a Batman that was established from his debut as co-existing with Bruce. That's never happened. Not with Azrael, not with Jim Gordon, and not with Dick Grayson (His status quo as Batman couldn't handle Bruce's return). In an increasingly crowded Bat-Family, with in a dying market like the comics industry, with books like Batman and the Signal and Batwing being unable to sell, do you truly believe that DC would go through all this effort to bring back a character with 6 appearances from the 70s, revamp them from the ground up, make them Batman instead of the dozens of other Bat-Family members, and then reduce the amount of money they make off of them? I get you don't want him to stick around as Batman, but think about that. Why do you think even when Dan DiDio was running things that Jace Fox as Batman was still defined as permanent? Like I said, I'd rather stick to John Ridley's facts about the conversations around the character over at DC rather than you.
    A few things:
    1. I never said I didn't want him to stick around as a Batman. Personally, right now, I'm indifferent. Maybe that's why you're arguing here, you think I'm saying he shouldn't be Batman or something. I'm not saying that. I'm saying I believe that this is a gimmick. That's a very different thing.
    2. Holy moly, much of this paragraph just about is basically stuff I wanted to say, and yet we've drawn the opposite conclusions from it.
    3. The Death of Superman was sold as permanent (or so I've read - was before my time comics-wise). DC's done this kind of marketing before.

  4. #49
    Mighty Member Superboy-Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Earth-33
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    It doesn't need that exacting level of synergy. Miles may exist in another universe in film, but in the comic books the Ultimate universe outside of Spider-Man was basically dead, and this way Miles can cross over in all the Spidey books more easily. It's more important that the bump in comics sales a movie causes has content with that character in them, for that audience to buy, than for it to completely reflect the movie, since those people buying for the movie never become long term comic buyers.



    How am I admitting to being biased? I didn't say I was biased, so clearly you read something in something that makes you believe I'm biased, but doing that thing where you say "So you admit to being biased even though you've not said you're biased and I'm not explaining how what you said makes you biased." Please, for clarity, don't do that.
    I brought up the Corps because, even though they were destroyed when Kyle had his origin, the Corps had introduced the whole idea of multiple GLs, and human GLs to boot, beforehand. Even if the Corps was destroyed then, the GL audience was trained for decades to accept new human GLs. It's silly to ignore that aspect of it, no matter what the Corps status was during Kyle's origin.

    Jay is the grandfather Flash. Barry or Wally taking the mantle while he's still Flash in JSA stories is different, never mind the fact that the Flash family is just different from the Bat one.



    Not really. Blue Beetle is a more obscure character who during Ted's era couldn't support a book.


    Basically, the examples you're using are not similar. A popular hero like Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman has never had another character share their title while they've lived until now, only when they were dead, which never lasted, done as a gimmick. What happens in Flash, GL, and Blue Beetle are too specific to those different properties, in how the heroes, popularity, franchise, and legacy works compared to those other titles.



    A few things:
    1. I never said I didn't want him to stick around as a Batman. Personally, right now, I'm indifferent. Maybe that's why you're arguing here, you think I'm saying he shouldn't be Batman or something. I'm not saying that. I'm saying I believe that this is a gimmick. That's a very different thing.
    2. Holy moly, much of this paragraph just about is basically stuff I wanted to say, and yet we've drawn the opposite conclusions from it.
    3. The Death of Superman was sold as permanent (or so I've read - was before my time comics-wise). DC's done this kind of marketing before.
    I dunno what you're talking about, but they could've easily had Miles be the sole Ultimate Universe book.

    The rest is just you saying "that's different" so I'm gonna skip that, obviously when a new thing happens it takes time to get established in the mythos, I'm sure people were saying this same thing about Miles when he came to Earth-616. On the topic of you being biased, it's because you said, "I'd prefer the Batman fandom doesn't go down that direction."

    1. You're the one arguing with me. You quoted my message, so I brought evidence to debunk your claims. That's it.
    2. I don't see how anyone could draw the opposite conclusion from that.
    3. There's an obvious difference here, the Death of Superman was entirely based around taking away Clark Kent. The Next Batman takes nothing away from Bruce or the rest of the Bat-Family. It's a disingenuous comparison. And comparing marketing the Death of Superman towards introducing a Batman meant to represent people of color is... Not the same.

  5. #50
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superboy-Prime View Post
    I dunno what you're talking about, but they could've easily had Miles be the sole Ultimate Universe book.
    They could've - but from a market standpoint, would that sell more books?

    The rest is just you saying "that's different" so I'm gonna skip that,
    Fair enough, but they are different, and that matters.

    obviously when a new thing happens it takes time to get established in the mythos, I'm sure people were saying this same thing about Miles when he came to Earth-616. On the topic of you being biased, it's because you said, "I'd prefer the Batman fandom doesn't go down that direction."
    True, it does take time. But...is Cassandra Cain or Stephanie Brown still typically Batgirl outside of some random showings these days? Is Nightwing or Gordon still Batman? How integral has Bluebird been to the Batfamily lately? How many new villains of the past 20 years are still a threat? Fact is Miles is more an exception than a rule.

    I'm not sure if "not wanting more bickering" is biased though? Like, is anyone arguing for more bickering? That kind of happens and is inevitable when characters share a mantle.

    1. You're the one arguing with me. You quoted my message,
    Fair enough.

    so I brought evidence to debunk your claims. That's it.
    I disagree on this point, but to each their own.

    2. I don't see how anyone could draw the opposite conclusion from that.
    Really?
    "there's never been a Batman that was established from his debut as co-existing with Bruce. That's never happened. Not with Azrael, not with Jim Gordon, and not with Dick Grayson (His status quo as Batman couldn't handle Bruce's return)."

    You listed multiple Batmen who aren't in the mantle any more and turned out to be just gimmicks. I mean, you're arguing that the co-existing thing is somehow different enough from the replacement thing to be what makes it stick this time, yet history and numbers is still just not promising here. You then go on to say:

    "In an increasingly crowded Bat-Family, with in a dying market like the comics industry, with books like Batman and the Signal and Batwing being unable to sell,"

    And you're takeaway from this is that somehow Jace is going to be the outlier?

    I mean, it's harder for me to see how you came to your conclusion with these parts of your argument.

    3. There's an obvious difference here, the Death of Superman was entirely based around taking away Clark Kent. The Next Batman takes nothing away from Bruce or the rest of the Bat-Family. It's a disingenuous comparison. And comparing marketing the Death of Superman towards introducing a Batman meant to represent people of color is... Not the same.
    True, and fair enough. But to me, it still looks and sounds and feels like a gimmick, and until enough time has passed to prove otherwise, I don't see a reason to assume it's not.
    And being a gimmick isn't a bad thing - some great stories were gimmicks. I just don't think Jace will still be known as Batman in 2039, that's all.

  6. #51
    Mighty Member Superboy-Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Earth-33
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    They could've - but from a market standpoint, would that sell more books?



    Fair enough, but they are different, and that matters.



    True, it does take time. But...is Cassandra Cain or Stephanie Brown still typically Batgirl outside of some random showings these days? Is Nightwing or Gordon still Batman? How integral has Bluebird been to the Batfamily lately? How many new villains of the past 20 years are still a threat? Fact is Miles is more an exception than a rule.

    I'm not sure if "not wanting more bickering" is biased though? Like, is anyone arguing for more bickering? That kind of happens and is inevitable when characters share a mantle.



    Fair enough.



    I disagree on this point, but to each their own.



    Really?
    "there's never been a Batman that was established from his debut as co-existing with Bruce. That's never happened. Not with Azrael, not with Jim Gordon, and not with Dick Grayson (His status quo as Batman couldn't handle Bruce's return)."

    You listed multiple Batmen who aren't in the mantle any more and turned out to be just gimmicks. I mean, you're arguing that the co-existing thing is somehow different enough from the replacement thing to be what makes it stick this time, yet history and numbers is still just not promising here. You then go on to say:

    "In an increasingly crowded Bat-Family, with in a dying market like the comics industry, with books like Batman and the Signal and Batwing being unable to sell,"

    And you're takeaway from this is that somehow Jace is going to be the outlier?

    I mean, it's harder for me to see how you came to your conclusion with these parts of your argument.



    True, and fair enough. But to me, it still looks and sounds and feels like a gimmick, and until enough time has passed to prove otherwise, I don't see a reason to assume it's not.
    And being a gimmick isn't a bad thing - some great stories were gimmicks. I just don't think Jace will still be known as Batman in 2039, that's all.
    I don't know what you're talking about.

    It doesn't matter.

    Batgirl is a relatively minor character compared to freaking Batman. Jim Gordon and Nightwing are established characters with decades of history in pre-established status quos who were never intended to be permanent like Jace. If you want to talk about rules, generally the characters like Miles, Jace, and Barry Allen, the ones who are first established in their popular mantles, are the ones who stick.

    I'm arguing that a Batman meant to represent people of color, a Batman established to exist alongside Bruce, and a Batman without an already established status quo is very much different. Dick Grayson, Azrael, and Jim Gordon can't represent POC like Jace does. That already comes with much more nuance than just "a new Batman."

    The obvious takeaway is that DC has no reason to demote Jace from Batman and lessen his sales, which are pretty much guaranteed to be higher than both Duke's and Luke's, when both of those characters already fit the potential roles his demotion would place him into. They were already representing kids of color and could've done with more focus, but the difference is that as Batman Jace would just sell more and is incredibly impactful. It's an obvious conclusion to come to.

    Why did they choose Jace?
    1. They can build their own history with him from the ground up. Second Son entirely retcons his Earth-One stories.
    2. A black man being under the Batman cowl, arguably DC's premier hero, is great representation.
    3. Another Batman book that sells.

    John Ridley stated the first point. If it really was a gimmick, they would've chosen Luke Fox. Already established, has an identity go back to, the Fox Family provides a great supporting cast, etc. There was no reason to use Jace other than the fact that him not being temporary allows them a chance to craft a fully fledged successor to Bruce. If it really was a gimmick, why anger Duke, Luke, and all these other character's fanbases to prop up Jace?

    Well, I'm not really arguing with your opinion, the only objective source we have to go off of says you're wrong. Calling a character of color that's meant to represent underrepresented audiences a gimmick is entirely a bad thing, though, by the way. I mean, I understand from your perspective you're saying what you think it is. But DC doing that would be a horrible thing.
    Last edited by Superboy-Prime; 05-14-2021 at 09:25 PM.

  7. #52
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    To be honest, I haven't really read any Jace Fox stories yet (or much recent Batman stuff at all, frankly).

    I think whether he stays around or not in the long-term depends on a bunch of things - whether he develops a dedicated following among comic-book fans, how much this following penetrates the wider pop-cultural consciousness, whether he gets any significant appearances in other media (which feeds into the previous point), whether he becomes a household name...and so on.

    The next few years will be crucial for the character. Jace Fox needs to be around as Batman in some way or form in 2025 before we can even think about him being around in 2039.

    That said, on a larger point, this thread started in 2018. The world, and the United States in particular, has changed a lot since then. We can extrapolate how things will be in 2039 based on past trends, but I think right now we're going through such a chaotic time - socially, politically and culturally - that there's no telling what shake-ups could happen in media and pop-culture. Icons like Batman and Superman have been largely immune to over 80 years of social and cultural shifts, but maybe the social and cultural shifts to come might change that.

  8. #53
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superboy-Prime View Post
    I don't know what you're talking about.

    It doesn't matter.

    Batgirl is a relatively minor character compared to freaking Batman. Jim Gordon and Nightwing are established characters with decades of history in pre-established status quos who were never intended to be permanent like Jace. If you want to talk about rules, generally the characters like Miles, Jace, and Barry Allen, the ones who are first established in their popular mantles, are the ones who stick.

    I'm arguing that a Batman meant to represent people of color, a Batman established to exist alongside Bruce, and a Batman without an already established status quo is very much different. Dick Grayson, Azrael, and Jim Gordon can't represent POC like Jace does. That already comes with much more nuance than just "a new Batman."

    The obvious takeaway is that DC has no reason to demote Jace from Batman and lessen his sales, which are pretty much guaranteed to be higher than both Duke's and Luke's, when both of those characters already fit the potential roles his demotion would place him into. They were already representing kids of color and could've done with more focus, but the difference is that as Batman Jace would just sell more and is incredibly impactful. It's an obvious conclusion to come to.

    Why did they choose Jace?
    1. They can build their own history with him from the ground up. Second Son entirely retcons his Earth-One stories.
    2. A black man being under the Batman cowl, arguably DC's premier hero, is great representation.
    3. Another Batman book that sells.

    John Ridley stated the first point. If it really was a gimmick, they would've chosen Luke Fox. Already established, has an identity go back to, the Fox Family provides a great supporting cast, etc. There was no reason to use Jace other than the fact that him not being temporary allows them a chance to craft a fully fledged successor to Bruce. If it really was a gimmick, why anger Duke, Luke, and all these other character's fanbases to prop up Jace?

    Well, I'm not really arguing with your opinion, the only objective source we have to go off of says you're wrong. Calling a character of color that's meant to represent underrepresented audiences a gimmick is entirely a bad thing, though, by the way. I mean, I understand from your perspective you're saying what you think it is. But DC doing that would be a horrible thing.
    Fair enough, just going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see this lasting long beyond the stories Ridley wants to tell.

  9. #54
    Mighty Member Superboy-Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Earth-33
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    To be honest, I haven't really read any Jace Fox stories yet (or much recent Batman stuff at all, frankly).

    I think whether he stays around or not in the long-term depends on a bunch of things - whether he develops a dedicated following among comic-book fans, how much this following penetrates the wider pop-cultural consciousness, whether he gets any significant appearances in other media (which feeds into the previous point), whether he becomes a household name...and so on.

    The next few years will be crucial for the character. Jace Fox needs to be around as Batman in some way or form in 2025 before we can even think about him being around in 2039.

    That said, on a larger point, this thread started in 2018. The world, and the United States in particular, has changed a lot since then. We can extrapolate how things will be in 2039 based on past trends, but I think right now we're going through such a chaotic time - socially, politically and culturally - that there's no telling what shake-ups could happen in media and pop-culture. Icons like Batman and Superman have been largely immune to over 80 years of social and cultural shifts, but maybe the social and cultural shifts to come might change that.
    Anyone can make predictions on that other stuff. I find it likely, since he's Batman, has a pretty cool suit, that he'll gain a following. I could totally be wrong. As for the rest, well, Yara Flor was going to get a CW show, so The Next Batman showing up in other media seems very likely. That'd probably feed into the popularity thing.

    For your final paragraph, I don't think the desire for people to see those who look like themselves reflected on the page or screen is going anywhere. But, by then, the comics industry very much could be gone! I guess?
    Last edited by Superboy-Prime; 05-14-2021 at 11:29 PM.

  10. #55
    Mighty Member Superboy-Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Earth-33
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Fair enough, just going to have to agree to disagree. I just don't see this lasting long beyond the stories Ridley wants to tell.
    I could say the same thing about Jon Kent or Yara Flor. People could've said the same thing about Kyle Rayner back in his first run. Cynicism is boring. Personally, Jace Fox's premise as Batman is much better than Batman Beyond's or Dick Grayson as Batman's. It's on equal footing with Bruce: understandable, thematically fitting, easily summarized, and a great contrast. That's something to be commended and recognized.
    Last edited by Superboy-Prime; 05-15-2021 at 12:53 AM.

  11. #56
    Ultimate Member dietrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    10,976

    Default

    It's a no brainer, Bruce Wayne and

    Terry.

    As an aside with Morrison back doing work for Dc my hopes are up for Arkham Asylum2 with Damian Wayne. I'm desperate to see more of that batman
    Last edited by dietrich; 05-15-2021 at 01:37 AM.

  12. #57
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superboy-Prime View Post
    I could say the same thing about Jon Kent or Yara Flor. People could've said the same thing about Kyle Rayner back in his first run. Cynicism is boring. Personally, Jace Fox's premise as Batman is much better than Batman Beyond's or Dick Grayson as Batman's. It's on equal footing with Bruce: understandable, thematically fitting, easily summarized, and a great contrast. That's something to be commended and recognized.
    Technically it's only cynicism if it's negative - on Jace I'm indifferent, so it's not cynicism for me to think he's a gimmick. For example, you mentioned Jon Kent - you may view the character making it this far in an optimistic light - to me, his continuing existence is a very cynical thing. If I were an optimist I'd think maybe there's still yet a chance he'll die and get retconned away, but I'm a pessimist so I'm afraid I'm stuck with him. Positivity and negativity is subjective not objective, and neutral indifference shouldn't be mistaken for either.

    Maybe Jace is going to be a Batman for many years to come, maybe he won't, but neither of us know for sure and my guess is as valid as yours.

  13. #58
    Mighty Member Superboy-Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Earth-33
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Technically it's only cynicism if it's negative - on Jace I'm indifferent, so it's not cynicism for me to think he's a gimmick. For example, you mentioned Jon Kent - you may view the character making it this far in an optimistic light - to me, his continuing existence is a very cynical thing. If I were an optimist I'd think maybe there's still yet a chance he'll die and get retconned away, but I'm a pessimist so I'm afraid I'm stuck with him. Positivity and negativity is subjective not objective, and neutral indifference shouldn't be mistaken for either.

    Maybe Jace is going to be a Batman for many years to come, maybe he won't, but neither of us know for sure and my guess is as valid as yours.
    Well, again, my view has evidence from an objective source to support it. So I'm not exactly guessing.
    Last edited by Superboy-Prime; 05-15-2021 at 02:25 AM.

  14. #59
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    12,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Superboy-Prime View Post
    Well, again, my view has evidence from an objective source to support it. So I'm not exactly guessing.
    I wouldn't call the writer of the book an objective source by any stretch - you're aware that part of their job is to hype up their work. No writer has ever admitted that their story was a gimmick, even though many were. They routinely advertise their work as being big news in interviews. So objectivity from the source you're citing isn't something I'd count on.

  15. #60
    Mighty Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The other side
    Posts
    1,146

    Default

    I don't think there should be any Batman other than Bruce. Batman was born from Bruce's trauma and should only exist as long as Bruce lives. Batman should not be seen as a mantle to be handed down, it should be a wholly unique identity only for Bruce to carry out his mission. When he finally dies Batman dies with him. As far as Jace is concerned I'm indifferent, he's fine as a character I guess but I cannot understand this direction. Batman already exists, he is a major presence in Gotham and Jace is going to decide I'm gonna become Batman too? How does one just take the identity of another and expect to be taken seriously, he shows up dressed up in a batsuit and declares himself Batman; people will know he is not the real Batman just some wannabe cosplayer. Batman and Bruce Wayne go hand in hand, some may say this isn't a gimmick and they may be sincere in that but this status quo will not last. There are so many Bruce/Batman media projects in the works, is DC really going to try and say there are now two Batmans and Jace is on equal footing with Bruce? How long until the Jace fans start calling for Bruce to be sidelined because as long as Bruce is around Jace cannot truly shine as Batman. I think DC just opened a big can of worms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •